Tuesday, 7 June 2011

Article 6 and Reasoned Verdicts

The role of juries in criminal trials is probably one of the aspects which most facinates the general public. But how do jury decisions square with a defendant's wish to know on which grounds and considerations he or she has been found guilty? It is a recurring issue, which resurfaced in the case of Taxquet v Belgium last year. Paul Roberts of the University of Nottingham has addressed this topic in an article entitled 'Does Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights Require Reasoned Verdicts in Criminal Trials?', published in the latest issue of the Human Rights Law Review (Vol. 11, No. 2, 2011). This is the abstract:

This article revisits the controversial question whether Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires juries to give reasoned verdicts in criminal trials, in the light of the recent decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Taxquet v Belgium (2010). On the face of it, Taxquet reiterates the orthodox position elucidated in previous Strasbourg jurisprudence: the traditional common law jury delivering unreasoned general verdicts is in principle compatible with the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6. On closer examination, however, the Grand Chamber's Judgment contains remarks and suggestions that could be construed as more threatening to the long-term future of the common law jury as it currently exists in the United Kingdom and in other Council of Europe member states. This realisation prompts broader critical reflections on: the authority and competence of the European Court of Human Rights; alternative approaches to interpreting Strasbourg jurisprudence and mediating its impact on domestic law; and the rationality and legitimacy of unreasoned jury verdicts in criminal adjudication.

2 comments:

Michal Kupiec
said...

My name is Michael Kupiec. My complaint send to the European Court of Human Rights in national (Polish) language, were falsified by clerks of European Court of Human Rights. The clerks presented different facts than really had a place, omitted important decision and hid facts about corruption and falsifies to protect Polish justice system and to protect polish judges who covered criminals.

My name is Michal Kupiec and I would like to shortly describe HOW EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FALSIFIED MY COMPLAINT AGAINST POLAND. Case which falsified statement of fact you can find on ECHR web site and which ECHR REFUSE TO PRESENT FAIR BASE ON DOCUMENTS to cover CORRUPTION AND MAFIA ACTIVITY OF POLISH JUSTICE SYSTEM.Below are proves as European Court of Human Rights cover mafia activity, corruption and mafia activity of polish Judges and Prosecutors. Firstly short historical statement about WHO IS WHO IN ECHR ... Polish judge in European Court of Human Right Mr. LECH GARLICKI it is COMMUNIST JUDGE, which his law carrier started in time of COMMUNISM period time in Poland. In time when PEOPLE IN POLAND WERE ARRESTED and KILLED, students relegate from Universities for his political opinions and saying TRUE, Mr Lech Garlicki (JUDGE OF ECHR) build his great law communists career. LECH GARLICKI HAVE SPECIFIC EDUCATIONAL LAW LEVEL ... He was born in 1946 and was graduate in 1968 at age 22 (normal polish law education is 5 years and normal Univeristy age time end is 24 years. His communist law carrier its the period of totalitarian and communism period in Poland, time when people were killed arrested tortured ... in this times LECH GARLICKI IS A POLISH LAWYER and receiving gratulations from totalitarian communists authorities.